Psychology
2011. Vol.2, No.8, 797-803
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.28122
797
The Development of the Greek Personality Assessment Inventory
Dimitrios Georgiou Lyrakos
Maastricht University, Elpis Care, Greece.
Received August 17th, 2011; revised September 26th, 2011; accepted October 25th, 2011.
Presented in the current report are the reliability analysis of the Greek Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI),
the differences between the means and the standard deviation (SD) of the Greek and the US sample and the
creation of the maximum non-clinical T Scores for each of the scale and subscale produced by the Greek stan-
dardization sample. The PAI is considered, in the US and in many European countries, one of the most reliable
multidimensional psychometric inventories. The PAI consists of 344 questions that are separated in non-over-
lapping scales of clinical, treatment focus, personality and validity context. The present, mixed design study
had 1870 participants, males and females between the ages of 20 and 55.The participants were 1120 non-clinical
(standardization sample), 450 psychiatric inpatients and 300 psychiatric outpatients, who were gathered from 4
major regions of Greece.
Keywords: Personality Assessment Inventory, Psychometrics, Greek Personality Tests, Clinical Psychology,
Psychopathology, C l in i ca l As s e ssment
Introduction
In the field of measures of personality there are a wide vari-
ety of instruments that can help to provide information that
suggest either a diagnosis or diagnostic possibility. Even
though these tests are not specifically designed to conclude an
exact diagnosis, they nonetheless help to assist in the differen-
tial diagnosis with many complicated cases. These batteries
include multi-scale instruments that list the symptoms and the
other features of psychiatric disorders by asking the respon-
dents to list how and in what capacity they are bothered by their
symptoms. Respondents may be required to answer True or
False as to whether particular statements apply to them. Re-
search on these scales has indicated a high score on the indi-
vidual level, or some patterns and profiles of multiple scores, to
be associated with certain disorders or diagnostic groups. When
presented, these scores are indicative of the presence of an as-
sociated type of pathology that needs further investigation.
Hence the information provided by these testing forms is the
starting point for the beginning of the diagnostic process. It also
serves as supplemental information that helps to support an
already suspected and present problem, information about pos-
sible treatment obstacles, or treatment focus areas and personal-
ity characteristics (Weiner et al., 2003).
One of the best known and most used among these measures
is The Personality Assessment Inventory, (PAI) (Morey, 1991)
which is a self-administered test for personality, psychopa-
thology and treatment consideration factors. The test is de-
signed to collect information on critical client variables in a
number of behavioral health care situations. The test has been
conceived to provide a measure of construct that prove to be
central in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of
treatment. Even though this instrument has been introduced
very recently it has already been the source of considerable
attention among researchers and clinicians. Additionally the
PAI has been described as a ‘substantial improvement from a
psychometric perspective over the existing new personality
tests’ (Helmes et al., 1993). The PAI has been developed along
the lines of a construct validation framework that emphasizes a
rational and quantitative method of scale development which
lays a strong emphasis on a theoretically informed approach
towards developing items. In addition to this it also emphasizes
an assessment of the items’ stability and correlates. The PAI
has been designed for use with individuals between the ages of
18 to 89 years of age and consists of 344 items constituting on
four sets of nonoverlapping scales. There are 4 validity scales,
11 clinical scales covering major categories of pathologies that
correspond to DSM nosology (neurotic spectrum—SOM, ANX,
ARD, DEP; psychotic spectrum—MAN, PAR, SCZ; behavior
disorder or impulse control problems—BOR, ANT, ALC,
DRG). There are 5 treatment scales measuring constructs that
are relevant to treatment, and 2 interpersonal scales (Strauss et
al. 2006), on Table 1 there are presented the scales and sub-
scales and their a cronyms.
When Morey in 1991 was developing the PAI he reviewed
each historical and recent literature on the targeted clinical
syndromes in order to ensure that the PAI item assessed the
core components of each disorder. For this reason the PAI has
documented reliability validity in the assessment of personality
and psychopathology in college, normative, and clinical sample.
The PAI has also been examined recently in other specific
populations such as alcohol dependent individuals, people with
deviant and criminal behavior, as well as individuals suffering
from eating disorders (Boccaccini et al. 2010, Sinclair et al.
2010, Thompson et al. 2010, Walters et al. 2010). The studies
done with these groups indicate a success of PAI diagnosing
these populations. There are certain aspects of PAI that indicate
that it may be especially well suited for use with patients suf-
fering from chronic pain as well (Karlin et al., 2005). A major
practical advantage of PAI is its low text complexity of a fourth
grade level of education. It is also much shorter than other per-
sonality inventories such as the MMPI-2 which has 567 items
compared to the significant less questions on the PAI (Weiner
et al., 2003, Lanyon et al. 1997). Additionally the PAI also
contains a greater coverage of certain phenomena related to
psychopathology and personality, including acting out, sub-
stance abuse and drugs treatment acceptance, interpersonal
factors, and the more severe personality dysfunction such as

D. G. LYRAKOS
798
Table 1.
Scales and subscales names a nd ac ronyms.
Scale Ac ronym Scale Name Subscale Acronym Subscale Name
INC Inconsistency SOM-C Conversion
INF Infrequency SOM-S Somatization
NIM Negative Impression SOM-H Health Concerns
PIM Positive Impression ANX-C Cognitive
SOM Somatic Complaints ANX-A Affective
ANX Anxiety ANX-P Physiological
ARD Anxiety Related Disorders ARD-O Obsessive – C ompulsive
DEP Depression ARD-P Phobias
MAN Mania ARD-T Traumatic Stress
PAR Paranoia DEP-C Cognitive
SCZ Schizophrenia DEP-A Affective
BOR Borderline Feature DEP-P Physiological
ANT Antisocial Features MAN-A Activity Level
ALC Alcohol Problems MAN-G Grandiosity
DRG Drug Problems MAN-I Irritability
AGG Aggression PAR-H Hypervigilance
SUI Suicidal Ideation PAR-P Persecution
STR Stress PAR-R Resentment
NON Nonsupport SCZ-P Psychotic Experiences
RXR Treatment Rejection SCZ-S Social Detachment
DOM Dominance SCZ-T Thought Disorder
WRM Warmth BOR-A Affective Instability
BOR-I Identity Problems
BOR-N Negative Relationships
BOR-S Self-Harm
ANT-A Antisocial Behaviors
ANT-E Egocentricity
ANT-S Stimulus-Seeking
AGG-A Aggressive Attitude
AGG-V Verbal Aggression
AGG-P Physical Aggression
borderline personality and psychopathy (Weiner et al., 2003).
The PAI also has an advantage over the other briefer psycho-
logical measures whereby it includes 5 main validity scales,
infrequency, Inconsistency, positive, negative impression and
malingering, which are particularly valuable patients in crisis,
where they over describe their symptoms or they tend to con-
ceal them (Hall, 2007).
The purpose of the present study is to demonstrate the de-
velopment of the Greek Personality Assessment Inventory,
based on the German study by Groves et al. 2007, and the
Greek T-Scores produced by the analysis of the standardization
sample.
Method
Design
A mixed design has been followed. The independent vari-
ables are the Greek version of the PAI Questionnaire and the
US version of the same questionnaire and the dependant vari-

D. G. LYRAKOS
799
ables are the data from the standardization and clinical US
sample obtained by Morey in 1991 during the development of
the PAI and the data from the Standardization and clinical
Greek sample, obtained for the present study.
Participants
The 1870 participants were both male (48.9%) and female
(51.1%). The nonclinical sample consisted of 1.120 participants
(59.8%) and were selected by a marketing research company
from the major Greek cities. There were also 450 inpatients
(24%) and 300 outpatients (16.2%), who were selected by psy-
chiatric institutions and private practices from ma same cities
that the non clinical sample was selected. The participants were
adults, between the ages of 18 and 75; possible organic symp-
toms such as dementia and mental retardation (IQ < 80) ex-
cluded the participant from the study. The possible exclusion of
any participant occurred by the screening questions before the
completion of the questionnaire.
There were 4 major Greek regions, selected, from where the
all participants were obtained (Table 2). On the Greek regions
the islands were not included because there were significant
procedural problems.
Nonclinical Participants (Standardization Sample)
The nonclinical, standardization, participants were obtained
by a marketing research company, through door to door re-
quests, in order to obtain a sufficient sample in terms of geo-
graphical and demographical characteristics, similar method
was used in the German translation by Groves et al. 2007. The
possible participants were requested if they were willing to
participate in the study. If they wished to do so, they signed the
consent form. On the form there was an option for the partici-
pants, if they wished, to be informed about the results of the
questionnaire.
Clinical Part ic ipants
For the inpatients participating in the study initial permission
was requested by the scientific directors of the facilities.
The clinical participants were initially screened, by their
therapists, in terms of intelligence and organic disorders. Fur-
thermore the participants should have an initial or final diagno-
sis of any Axis I or II mental disorder by a clinical service. The
participant’s therapists, for inpatients and outpatients, were
requested to brief them about the study and then to ask them if
Table 2.
Region’s population and participant’s percent.
Name of the Ci t y Actual Populat i on Sample Percent
Thessaloniki 1,057,825 24.7
Bolos-Larisa 82,439 + 279,305 = 361,74 4 8.46
Athens 2,664,776 62.3
Patra-Tripoli 163,446 + 28,9 76 = 192,442 4.5
Total 4,276,787 100
Based on Population Report of 2004.
they were willing to participate. Before the completion of the
questionnaire the participants were asked to sign a consent
form.
Materials
For the present study there were no other tests used apart
from the Greek version of the PAI. There was though a struc-
tured interview for the standardization sample in order to de-
termine a number of factors, such as whether they are or were
on any psychiatric medications, whether they ever visited a
psychologist or psychiatrists and way, whether they have any
alcohol or drug abuse problems. On the interview form there
were also a number of clarification questions if the participant
answered affirmatively to any of the above-mentioned ques-
tions.
Procedure
Before the Greek version of the PAI could be distributed, a
translation and back translation of the English version should
be approved by Les Morey, the writer of the original question-
naire. The translation was conducted by two different Greek,
English teachers and then both translations were compared by
two clinical psychologists. In order to evaluate the cross cul-
tural validity of the questions a cultural psychologist had evalu-
ated the questions. After the formulation of the Greek version
of the questionnaire two different English teachers were re-
quested to translate the Greek version of the questionnaire in
English. After the approval of the back translation the distribu-
tion commenced. After obtaining approval by the scientific
directors of the mental health services, we have provided to the
facilities and therapists, questionnaires and the participant’s
screening parameters. The same materials and the interview
form were also given to the marketing company for obtaining
the standardization sample.
Analysis
The statistical analysis of the present study, was conducted
with SPSS 17, and it is separated in three differe nt parts:
1) Reliability for all three groups of participants, nonclinical,
inpatients and outpatients;
2) Comparison of the means and the SD between the Stan-
dardization US and Greek sample and, if the means and SD
differ
3) The calculation of the T Scores based on the same equa-
tion used in the original US PAI, but with the means and stan-
dard deviation produced by the Greek population.
Results
From Tables 3 and 4, it can be seen that all the scales and
subscales have produced high Cronbach’s Alpha in all three
types of participants, healthy, inpatients, and outpatients. From
Table 3 it can be seen that the reliability analysis for all the sub-
scales in all three samples, health participants, inpatients, outpa-
tients, has produced high Cronbach’s Alpha. For the healthy
sample the lower alpha produced was for the ARD-O = 0.653,
but even if any of the items were deleted there would be no sig-
nificant change. For the inpatients the lower Cronbach’s Alpha
was produced for MAN-A = 0.683, but again there would be no
significant change if any of the items were deleted. Finally for
the outpatients sample, the lowest Cronbach’s Alpha was pro-
duced for SOM-C = 0.721, which would not have any signifi-
cant change if any of the items were deleted. From Table 4, it

D. G. LYRAKOS
800
Table 3.
Subscales reliability analysis.
Normal Sample Clinical Sample (In Patients) Clinical Sam ple (Out Patients) US Standa rdization Sample
Subscale N Cronbach’s Alpha N N Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha N Cronbach’s Alpha
SOM-C 1120 0.791* 450 300 0.721* 0.863* 1000 0.74*
SOM-S 1120 0.742* 450 300 0.953* 0.945* 1000 0.68*
SOM-H 1120 0.845* 450 300 0.833* 0.962* 1000 0.81*
ANX-C 1120 0.821* 450 300 0.842* 0.921* 1000 0.81*
ANX-A 1120 0.747* 450 300 0.963* 0.898* 1000 0.73*
ANX-P 1120 0.721* 450 300 0.778* 0.970* 1000 0.74*
ARD-O 1120 0.653* 450 300 0.796* 0.958* 1000 0.56*
ARD-P 1120 0.733* 450 300 0.842* 0.965* 1000 0.58*
ARD-T 1120 0.842* 450 300 0.963* 0.863* 1000 0.81*
DEP-C 1120 0.863* 450 300 0.791* 0.945* 1000 0.74*
DEP-A 1120 0.778* 450 300 0.822* 0.962* 1000 0.80*
DEP-P 1120 0.796* 450 300 0.845* 0.921* 1000 0.71*
MAN-A 1120 0.698* 450 300 0.821* 0.683* 1000 0.51*
MAN-G 1120 0.701* 450 300 0.897* 0.687* 1000 0.73*
MAN-I 1120 0.712* 450 300 0.761* 0.785* 1000 0.78*
PAR-H 1120 0.863* 450 300 0.853* 0.791* 1000 0.64*
PAR-P 1120 0.776* 450 300 0.733* 0.822* 1000 0.76*
PAR-R 1120 0.763* 450 300 0.842* 0.845* 1000 0.66*
SCZ-P 1120 0.945* 450 300 0.963* 0.821* 1000 0.56*
SCZ-S 1120 0.862* 450 300 0.778* 0.897* 1000 0.79*
SCZ-T 1120 0.821* 450 300 0.796* 0.721* 1000 0.73*
BOR-A 1120 0.898* 450 300 0.863* 0.953* 1000 0.71*
BOR-I 1120 0.770* 450 300 0.836* 0.833* 1000 0.70*
BOR-N 1120 0.858* 450 300 0.863* 0.842* 1000 0.63*
BOR-S 1120 0.865* 450 300 0.945* 0.963* 1000 0.62*
ANT-A 1120 0.921* 450 300 0.962* 0.778* 1000 0.73*
ANT-E 1120 0.692* 450 300 0.921* 0.796* 1000 0.63*
ANT-S 1120 0.745* 450 300 0.898* 0.842* 1000 0.69*
AGG-A 1120 0.875* 450 300 0.958* 0.963* 1000 0.74*
AGG-V 1120 0.854* 450 300 0.965* 0.778* 1000 0.67*
AGG-P 1120 0.975* 450 300 0.921* 0.796* 1000 0.71*
Note: * No significant change of the Cronbach’s Alpha if any of the items of the subscale are deleted.
can be seen that all the scales have produced high Cronbach’s
Alpha in all three types of participants, healthy, inpatients, and
outpatients. The comparison of the alpha coefficients between
the US (Morey 1991) and the Greek standardization sample do
not present significant differences with the exemption of the
ARD-O, ARD-P, MAN-A, SCZ-P and BOR-S where the reli-
ability was significant higher in the Greek than in the US sam-
ple.
For the second part of the analysis the means and standard
deviations have been compared between the standardization US
sample (Morey 1991) and the Greek standardization sample
produced in the present study, for the main scales and the sub-
scales.
The comparison of the US and GR standardization Means
(Table 5) showed that although the majority of the scales had
no significant differences, there are scales with high mean dif-
ferences between the US and Greek standardization sample
presented below. The results presented are from the equation
US Mean-GR Mean.
SOM = 1.95, MAN = –2.1, PAR = –2.8, BOR = –5.15 and
DOM = 1.49.
The comparison of the US and GR standardization SD (Table
5), produced high differences, with the exception of the PIM
and NON scale. On Table 5 there are presented the Mean and
SD of the US Normative sample (Morey 1991) and the ob-
tained Greek Sample for the scales. The comparison of the
Mean and the SD of US and GR Standardization sample of the
subscales, based on the same equation, produced the highest
differences for the means on: ARD-T = –1.69, DEP-C = –1.23,
MAN-G = –1.29, BOR-A = –1.36 and BOR-I = –1.2. In terms
of the SD, all subscales had similar differences, which is also
consistent with previous findings by Karaminas et al. (2007),
when they validated the MMPI-II.
As we have described, in the third phase of the analysis we
have created T Scores based on the Greek standardization sam-
ple according to the original study of the PAI. The reason for

D. G. LYRAKOS
801
Table 4.
Scales reliability analysis.
Normal Sample Clinical Sample (In Patients) (Outpatients)Clinical Sample (Out Patients) US Standardization Sample
Subscale N Cronbach’s Alpha N N Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha N Cronbach’s Alpha
NIM 1120 0.852* 450 300 0.864* 0.967* 1000 0.72*
PIM 11200. 862* 450 300 0.943* 0.987* 1000 0.71*
SOM 1120 0.792* 450 300 0.899* 0.898* 1000 0.89*
ANX 1120 0.821* 450 300 0.778 0.979* 1000 0.90*
ARD 1120 0.895* 450 300 0.796 0.983* 1000 0.76*
DEP 1120 0.795* 450 300 0.799* 0.960* 1000 0.87*
MAN 1120 0.954* 450 300 0.836* 0.861* 1000 0.82*
PAR 1120 0.835* 450 300 0.821* 0.959* 1000 0.85*
SCZ 1120 0.821* 450 300 0.894* 0.967* 1000 0.81*
BOR 1120 0.742* 450 300 0.890* 0.987* 1000 0.87*
ANT 1120 0.850* 450 300 0.864* 0.759* 1000 0.84*
ALC 1120 0.865* 450 300 0.861* 0.845* 1000 0.84*
DRG 1120 0.799* 450 300 0.959* 0.873* 1000 0.74*
AGG 1120 0.833* 450 300 0.967* 0.799* 1000 0.85*
SUI 1120 0.915* 450 300 0.861* 0.836* 1000 0.85*
STR 1120 0.741* 450 300 0.959* 0.821* 1000 0.76*
NON 1120 0.864* 450 300 0.967* 0.894* 1000 0.72*
RXR 1120 0.843* 450 300 0.987* 0.890* 1000 0.76*
DOM 1120 0.829* 450 300 0.759* 0.864* 1000 0.78*
WRM 1120 0.832* 450 300 0.845* 0.987* 1000 0.79*
Note: *No significant change of the Cronbach’s Alpha if any of the items of the scale are deleted.
that is because, the Mean and SD of the Standardization sample
is very important in the equation for the T Score, as it was
demonstrated in the German Adaptation and validation by
Groves et al. (2007). That is why it was decided to reevaluate
all T Scores following the Example of Cheung et al. 2003 for
the Chinese version of the PAI. In the present study we are
presenting the maximum Nonclinical T Score.
From the Raw data produced by the Greek Standardization
Sample the maximum raw scores were selected that was pro-
duced by 15% of the Healthy Population based on the Bell
curve theory was used. With that selected raw scores and the
Morey equation for the creation of the T Score (Morey, 1991),
the Greek T scores were produced and they are presented on
Table 6 for the scales and subscales.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to validate the Greek PAI,
taking into account the norms and social differences that
Greece has in relation to the US, where the original PAI was
developed. Although the majority of the PAI subscale T scores
are not markedly different for the US, as they have been found
by Morey 1991, and the Greek population, those differences
can be substantial enough to produce or to hide a number of
parameters important in treatment or in the process of produc-
ing a profile for a patient.
There were, however, three subscales and two scales that had
high differences between the maximum normal US T score as
found by Morey in 1991 and Greek T score, the three subscales
are part of clinical scales, one scale is part of a treatment con-
sideration section and the other scale examines personality
traits.
The first subscale is the BOR-A which examines the shift of
emotions. The Greek T score is 8 points higher in comparison
to the US T score. In a study by Lolis (2004), it has been found
that Greek people have a tendency to have outbursts of emo-
tions more common than in Northern European and US people.
BOR-A is a subscale that examines those behaviors and the
participant’s tendency towards them. The second subscale that
produced a high difference between US and Greek T scores is
BOR-N, which is the subscale that examines the tendency to
focus on chaotic and problematic relationships. In this subscale
the high nonclinical T-score is 10 points lower in comparison to
the US, found by Morey (1991). This is consistent with the
findings by Lolis (2004), who found that Greece has a stronger
family setting and different standards in comparison to the US
society (Lolis, 2004). Greeks have a tendency to rely more on
friends and family and they also tend to expect more by their
social surrounding (Lolis, 2004), if those expectations are not
fulfilled then the person has a tendency to be disappointed and
to consider his/her social network as insufficient and inadequate,
exactly what the treatment scale of Nonsupport examines,
which is the only scale with the US maximum nonclinical T
score been 16 points higher in comparison to the Greek. That
shows that the US standardization sample has a significant
higher ‘tolerance’ in comparison to the Greek standardization
factor in terms of disappointment by the participant’s social
network. The last subscale that produced significant different T
score in Greece in comparison to the US is the ANT-E, which
examines the empathy and interaction with others. Based on the
results described above for NON and BOR-N, this 6 point dif-
ference is explainable, the lower T score in that subscale signi-
fies a lower tolerance in the Greek community about acts of
‘egocentricity’. In order to ensure though the accuracy of that

D. G. LYRAKOS
802
Table 5.
Means standard de v i ation US and Greek sample.
Scale US Mean US SD GR Mean GR SD Scale US Mean US SD GR Mean GR SD
ICN 5.39 3.35 5.5 3.45 SOM-C 2.5 3.37 2.34 2.99
INF 2.66 2.57 3.46 2.77 SOM-S 4.51 3.73 4.33 3.54
NIM 1.69 2.7 1.39 2.9 SOM-H 4.09 4.27 3.57 4.53
PIM 15.07 4.36 14.86 4.66 ANX-C 6.05 4.33 6.37 4.132
SOM 11.09 10.07 10.14 10.17 ANX-A 6.24 3.83 6.51 3.948
ANX 16.47 10.56 16.97 10.49 ANX-P 4.17 3.55 4.39 3.37
ARD 19.91 8.3 20.2 8.5 ARD-O 9.33 3.75 9.14 3.817
DEP 14.28 9.43 14.53 9.49 ARD-P 6.7 3.61 6.57 3.785
MAN 23.01 9.22 25.11 10.32 ARD-T 3.88 4.12 4.17 3.92
PAR 18.45 8.69 18.25 8.72 DEP-C 4.34 3.43 4.57 3.356
SCZ 13.99 7.79 14.29 7.89 DEP-A 4.04 3.66 4.34 3.585
BOR 18.03 10 18.18 9.89 DEP-P 5.89 4.16 5.58 3.742
ANT 13.16 9.11 13.75 9.17 MAN-A 6.69 3.2 7 3.662
ALC 4.83 5.62 4.57 5.58 MAN-G 8.39 4.37 9.68 4.99
DRG 4.09 4.99 4.21 5.01 MAN-I 7.92 4.37 8.61 5.19
AGG 14.81 8.42 15.86 8.5 PAR-H 7.6 4.27 7.93 3.88
SUI 3.28 4.86 3.07 4.81 PAR-P 3.64 3.41 3.21 3.315
STR 5.8 4.45 5.95 4.5 PAR-R 7.21 3.53 7.8 3.394
NON 4.9 3.36 5.18 3.32 SCZ-P 4.09 2.99 4.11 3.125
RXR 13.76 4.65 14 4.67 SCZ-S 5.59 3.94 5.26 3.716
DOM 20.6 5.59 19.98 5.62 SCZ-T 4.32 3.41 4.46 3.361
WRM 23.58 23.58 23.48 23.6 BOR-A 4.71 3.27 5.07 2.981
BOR-I 4.87 3.37 5.07 3.31
BOR-N 5.14 3.17 5.21 2.959
BOR-S 3.32 2.57 3.25 2.661
ANT-A 4.99 4.42 4.64 4.387
ANT-E 3.43 3.01 3.64 2.987
ANT-S 4.74 3.66 4.96 3.809
AGG-A 5.8 3.59 5.64 3.311
AGG-V 6.72 3.52 7.36 3.278
AGG-P 2.29 2.96 2.5 2.603
US Sample N = 1000; Greek Sample N = 1380.
subscale, interviews were conducted with participants from the
standardization sample and from the clinical sample diagnosed
with Antisocial Personality disorder, which supported the
clinical threshold of T score 89 for the Greek clinical sample.
The last scale with significant difference between US and
Greek maximum nonclinical T score is the personality scale of
Warmth. That particular scale is a two-way evaluative scale
(high and low), which means that a person with high levels on
that particular scale tends to be characterized by exceptionally
strong need to be accepted by others (Morey, 1991), whilst
people with low scores on Warmth tend to be uneasy in social
situations. People, who score low in that particular scale, pre-
sent uneasiness in social interaction. Again, associated with all
the above scales and subscales with differences between the US
and Greek T scores, the lower nonclinical T score is 10 points
lower in the Greek standardization sample in comparison to the
US sample.
The PAI is considered one of the most valid and accurate in-
strument in the field of clinical psychology and diagnostic psy-
chometrics (Maruish, 1999). The purpose of the present study
was to create the Greek T scores, following the same procedure
that Morey used in 1991 in the development of the PAI. It has
been decided to follow that particular procedure not because the
results produced by the instrument had weaknesses in the Greek

D. G. LYRAKOS
803
Table 6.
Maximum nonclinical T-scores (scales subscales).
Scale Maximum Normal T Scores Subscale Maximum Normal T Scores
ICN 65 SOM-C 82
INF 76 SOM-S 70
NIM 74 SOM-H 94
PIM 69 ANX-C 71
SOM 85 ANX-A 70
ANX 67 ANX-P 72
ARD 70 ARD-O 65
DEP 68 ARD-P 67
MAN 73 ARD-T 79
PAR 68 DEP-C 70
SCZ 71 DEP-A 75
BOR 77 DEP-P 71
ANT 74 MAN-A 77
ALC 69 MAN-G 75
DRG 70 MAN-I 67
AGG 73 PAR-H 65
SUI 77 PAR-P 75
STR 71 PAR-R 66
NON 72 SCZ-P 79
RXR 69 SCZ-S 75
DOM 67 SCZ-T 72
WRM 71 BOR-A 73
BOR-I 71
BOR-N 70
BOR-S 75
ANT-A 77
ANT-E 89
ANT-S 70
AGG-A 67
AGG-V 74
AGG-P 70
sample, but because we wanted to fully exploit the PAI’s
strengths for the Greek population, as it has been done for the
Chinese version of the PAI (Cheung et al., 2003).Again, as it
had been done by the US PAI team, we are currently in the
process of comparing the US and Greek T scores, through in-
terviews, clinical evaluations and a number of different clinical
tests. The results from those analyses will be presented on fu-
ture reports.
Apart from the finding presented in the present article there
is an ongoing process to investigate possible correlations be-
tween the scales and subscales of the Greek PAI and other per-
sonality inventories, such as MMPI-II and to create a more
detailed analysis of the validity of the inventory in Greek.
References
Archer, R. P., Smith, S. R. (2008) Personality Assessment. Florida:
CRC Press.
Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Hawes, S. W., Simpler, A., & John-
son, J. (2010). Predicting recidivism with the personality assessment
inventory in a sample of sex offenders screened for civil commitment
as sexually violent predators. Psychological Assessment, 22, 142-148.
doi:10.1037/a0017818
Cheung, F. M., Kwong, Y. Y., Zhang, J. (2003). Clinical validation of
the chinese personality assessment inventory. Psychological Assess-
ment, 25, 89-100. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.1.89
Groves, J. A., & Engel, R. R. (2007). The German adaptation and stan-
dardization of the personality assessment inventory (PAI). Journal of
Personality Assessment, 88, 49-56.
Hall, W. D., & Mattick, R. P. (2007) Clinical update: Codeine mainte-
nance is opioid dependence. The Lancet, 370, 550-552.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61273-2
Helmes, E., & Reddon, J. R. (1993). A perspective on developments in
assessing psychopathology: A critical review of the MMPI and
MMPI-2. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 453-471.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.453
Karaminas, N., Georgakas, P., Kantas A., Tsaousis, I., Marini, K.,
Karakosta, A., Stathopoulos, K. (2007) Cross cultural robustness of
MMPI-2: The Greek standardization. International Psychological
Bulleting, 11, 24-26.
Karlin, B. E., Creech, S. K., Grimes, J. S., Clark, T. S., Meagher, M. W.,
& Morey, L. C. (2005) The personality assessment inventory with
chronic pain patients: psychometric properties and clinical utility.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 1571-1585.
doi:10.1002/jclp.20209
Lanyon, R. I., & Goodstein, L. D. (1997) Personality Assessment. New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Lolis, V. (2004) Social Differences between the Greek, the US and the
British population. PhD Thesis, Athen: Pantion University, unpub-
lished.
Maruish, M. E. (1999) The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment
Planning and Outcomes Assessment. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Morey, L. C. (1991). The personality assessment inventory professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psyc h o l o g i c a l A s s e s sment Resources.
Sinclair, S. J., Antonius, D., Shiva, A., Siefert, C. J., Kehl-Fie, K.,
Lama, S., Blais, M. A. (2010). The psychometric properties of the
Personality Assessment Inventory-Short Form (PAI-SF) in inpatient
forensic and civil samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behav-
ioral Assessment, 32, 406-415. doi:10.1007/s10862-009-9165-x
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., Spreen, O. (2006) A compendium of
neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, A. W., Hantke, N., Phatak, V., & Chaytor, N. (2010). The
Personality Assessment Inventory as a tool for diagnosing psycho-
genic nonepileptic s e izures. Epilepsia, 51, 161-164.
doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02151.x
Wagner, M. T., Wymer, J. H., Topping, K. B., Pritchard, P. B. (2005)
use of the personality assessment inventory as an efficacious and
cost-effective diagnostic tool for nonepileptic seizures. Epilepsy and
Behavior, 7, 301-304. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2005.05.017
Walters, G. D., Diamond, P. M., & Magaletta, P. R. (2010). What is the
latent structure of alcohol use disorders? A taxometric analysis of the
personality assessment inventory alcohol problems scale in male and
female prison inmates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 26-37.
doi:10.1037/a0016587
Weiner, I. B., Freedheim, D. K., Goldstein, A. M. (2003) handbook of
psychology: forensic psychology. New Jersey: John Wi le y and Sons.
Weiner, I. B., et al. (2003) Handbook of Psychology Assessment Psy-
chology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Greek National Statistical Department (200 4) Greek Population Report.